House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Says 'Guaranteed Income' Is Worth Considering For Coronavirus Recovery (cbsnews.com) 367
DevNull127 shares a report from CBS News: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday that Congress might want to consider a guaranteed minimum income for Americans as part of the economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis. Her comments are the latest sign that Democratic lawmakers are seriously considering an idea that gained traction during the party's primary, thanks to the candidacy of Andrew Yang. Yang, an entrepreneur and philanthropist, promoted a universal basic income of $1,000 a month for every American during his presidential campaign. He ended his campaign in February, more than a month before the coronavirus crisis sent unemployment soaring. After President Trump signed the bill allowing direct payment to Americans, Yang said in a statement, "I'm pleased to see the White House adopt our vision of putting money directly into the hands of hard-working Americans. It's unfortunate to see this development take place under the current circumstances, but this is exactly what universal basic income is designed to do -- offer a way to ensure that Americans can make ends meet when they need it most." "We may have to think in terms of some different ways to put money in people's pockets," Pelosi said in an interview with MSNBC. "Let's see what works, what is operational, and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income, a guaranteed income for people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so."
In a letter to House Democrats earlier this month, Pelosi said she wanted "additional direct payments" to families in future bills. However, she did not provide any specifics on a plan or the amount of money Americans would receive.
In a letter to House Democrats earlier this month, Pelosi said she wanted "additional direct payments" to families in future bills. However, she did not provide any specifics on a plan or the amount of money Americans would receive.
Yang should have copyrighted that idea. (Score:2)
Now, after crowding him out of the race, everyone else is going to bring it up like it's their idea.
Re:Yang should have copyrighted that idea. (Score:5, Informative)
Yang wasn't close to birthing that idea. Sir Thomas More released Utopia in 1516, and many people have discussed it since then.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Utopia also means any non-existent society.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Utopia also means any non-existent society.
The "U" in Utopia comes from the Latin prefix "eu-" meaning good or well. It also shows up in words like "eugenics" and "euphoric". The opposite is "dys-" as in dystopia.
Utopia means a better or perfect society. Such a society may never exist, but "Utopia" does not mean any non-existent society.
Re:Yang should have copyrighted that idea. (Score:5, Informative)
No, the "U" in Utopia is actually sort of a joke (and it comes from Greek as much as Latin), whereby "eutopia" (a good place) is replaced by "(o)utopia" (no place). The joke being that an actual "eutopia" doesn't exist.
Does it matter? (Score:5, Informative)
As suggested by the Nirvana fallacy, just because we can probably never achieve a perfect society, doesn't mean that we can't strive for a better one.
A basic income guarantee (BIG) or universal basic income (UBI) would certainly not result in a perfect society, but it might be able to do more good with fewer resources than the current morass of encumbered welfare schemes that actually encourage people to stay on them by pulling the rug out from under them the moment they dare earn additional income. This is often called a "welfare cliff".
Meanwhile, I support having some level of welfare because it's cheaper, easier, and safer than not having a safety net at all, potentially forcing people to do unsavory things.
I mean, it's actually cheaper to give people homes in many cases than all of our anti-homeless spending that merely tries to drive the homeless elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Looking at the rough parts of the city I live in, the biggest issue is no money and no future. Single parent families not able to raise kids because they need to work 2 dead-end jobs. People turning to crime because they don't have the skills to get a job and/or they've got a record which disqualifies them from just about everything.
UBI would allow folks in that situation to potentially stay home and care for kids rather than sending them to school and then have them free-range for 3 hours after school. Or
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Informative)
So, are we shooting for Wiemar, Zimbabwe, Venezuela? Printing money for UBI doesn't print real goods, and more bucks for the same or fewer real things means inflation. At the scale where UBI is really enough to be basic, that's hyperinflation, and we've already seen how that one goes.
Greed isn't limited to big corporations or even grandma's pension fund, and in fact springs from individual greed. Inflation is a stealth tax on all, and especially those who have been responsible till now as it destroys the value of their savings.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what the left-winger proponents want. The right-wing proponents of UBI prefer to reallocate the already huge welfare programmes into UBI instead.
It woulnd't mean more inflation that QE has already given us... or at least it woulnd't pump up prices of things like housing, maybe consumer electricals instead, but I can't see competition allowing that to really happen.
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's talking about printing money? You'd pay for a UBI the same way you pay for everything else - taxes. In fact, in general, UBI plans are arranged so that, one way or another, you're paying it back in taxes and making a net contribution by the time you enter the middle class, if not sooner. It makes sure the lower classes can manage upward mobility without having to work 80 hours a week at low-paying jobs, and provides insurance to the middle class to take some of the sting out of unemployment. It's very, very rarely intended to provide a comfortable living on its own.
My personal preference for a basic level that would do an immense amount of good would be just enough to cover room and board at a cheap boarding house or the like - nobody needs to fear starvation or homelessness, but if you want more than minimalist survival you need to work for it. While those who were doing okay and have some savings built up have a bit of cushion to give them some more time to find the right job, instead of desperately taking any job they can find before they completely burn through their savings.
As for inflation - that doesn't just happen. In the U.S. it's carefully managed on purpose, specifically to destroy savings so that people will have greater incentive to invest rather than letting their savings sit worthlessly in the bank. As a stealth tax it hurts primarily the lower-middle class and upper end of the lower classes - those who have enough savings to have something to lose, but not enough to have access to effective investment opportunities.
Re: (Score:3)
"Also, the money would most likely not be sent by check, but by electronic deposit."
Well, a paper check is how California sent unemployment payments, as recent as a decade ago, in an effort to fight fraud. What it comes down to is that if the income is greater than 500$ a month there are people who can actually live on that well enough, and they can live quite comfortably out of an RV or sailboat without ever having to work in their life at 1000$ a month. I would think that the actual monthly payment would
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- There isn't enough money to pay for it.
Sure there is, U.S. GDP per capita was $65k in 2019 - $1,000/month is not even 20% of that. Moreover, with virtually every UBI plan the overwhelming majority of people will pay back their UBI in higher taxes - Even if 30% of the population receives some net UBI after taxes, let's say it's a linear fall off averaging half of the total after taxes, that's only 1/2*30%*20% = 3% of GDP. And it's a generous UBI that would have a net payout to half the population
- It wil
Re: (Score:3)
Yang wasn't close to birthing that idea. Sir Thomas More released Utopia in 1516
Plato's "The Republic" also has elements of communalism and Thomas More saw it as an inspiration.
many people have discussed it since then.
Many people have gone further than just discussion. Communal societies have been attempted many times, in many places, and in many variations. Most have failed.
Re: (Score:2)
Communal societies have been attempted many times, in many places, and in many variations. Most have failed.
They seem to be working fine in many small tribal communities around the world, many of which are quite old. Just sayin'....
Re: (Score:2)
Communal societies have been attempted many times, in many places, and in many variations. Most have failed.
They seem to be working fine in many small tribal communities around the world, many of which are quite old. Just sayin'....
So it doesn't scale and isn't for the vast majority of humanity. Just sayin'
Re: (Score:2)
So it doesn't scale and isn't for the vast majority of humanity.
I didn't say they would. Note that I didn't presume that was a requirement. A large part of our problem is high population and consequent high population density. When that happens in forests you get forest fires. When that happens in dense human populations you get pandemics.
Re: (Score:3)
And when you don't have high density, you don't get the arising of medicine, science and all the things that stop the basic diseases killing you before a pandemic is even an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to be working fine in many small tribal communities around the world
If you look at income, infant mortality, maternal mortality, violence, longevity, nutrition, literacy, health, sexual abuse, alcoholism, or any other measure of human welfare that you can think of, tribal societies are at the absolute bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yang should have copyrighted that idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you look at income, infant mortality, maternal mortality, violence, longevity, nutrition, literacy, health, sexual abuse, alcoholism, or any other measure of human welfare that you can think of, tribal societies are at the absolute bottom.
Your blanket pronouncement about tribal societies seems like an excessively harsh pronouncement and an extremely broad brush. It just dumps some extremely different groups of people with different traditions into one big bag, and a not very attractive bag at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Those largely may survive due to them being homogenous societies...pretty much everyone same race and religion.
That rules the US out quickly.
It seems the more diverse we've gotten the more fractured we've gotten over the last 75 years or so....
Re: Yang should have copyrighted that idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if you noticed just how crazy expensive the first payout was -- we're thing to be paying that off for a very long time. Besides, it's only a short term fix. Doing this over a longer period won't accomplish anything except hyperinflation.
That is to say, for the first year or two, sure, people will have an easier time paying their rent. But that stops being true once people start outbidding one another until housing costs reach a new, higher equilibrium between what people are willing to pay and how much money they actually have. Once that higher equilibrium is met, and it will be met very quickly, you'll have to raise the universal income again just to get back where you started.
Then, once you realize just how bad of an idea this all was, it's already too late because taking away that money means suddenly millions of people and businesses can't pay their bills.
Just don't do it.
Re: (Score:3)
Do some basic math. $1,000/mth * 323M people == $4T
US income tax collections last year $3.3T
So we want to give away more than was collected? If we do that what is going to pay for the other $3T/year the government spends?
Re: (Score:2)
Do some basic math. $1,000/mth * 323M people == $4T
There are only about 200m adults in the USA, but the final annual number is still staggering. Even at $500 per adult it's something on the order of $1.25t, which would only be even remotely possible if it replaced every other form of welfare.
Re: Yang should have copyrighted that idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
We've spent way more than that on "recovery" already, very little of which seems to be in the hands of the people. It would have cost a lot less, had we eliminated all the graft.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it has a lot to do with the inefficiency, corruption and ineptitude of the Federal Bureaucracy .....they just never can do anything efficient, properly targeted, etc.
LOL...and still, people want to give them evern MORE control over our lives, like handling our medical needs.
*SIGH*
Re: (Score:3)
like handling our medical needs.
Suuuuure, because private sector healthcare, run by bean counters and paper shufflers, really care about whether people live or die or not, and not about maximum profit, suuuuure they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"We've spent way more than that on "recovery" already"
We *BORROWED* all of that, trillions upon trillions on top of existing dozens of trillions. And how long can we continue to pile on trillions of dollars of more debt before NOBODY will lend to the government anymore and hyper-inflation starts?
This is not sustainable. We cannot forever borrow our way out of economic problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Do some basic math. $1,000/mth * 323M people == $4T US income tax collections last year $3.3T
So we want to give away more than was collected? If we do that what is going to pay for the other $3T/year the government spends?
I think the UBI's potential is not in addition to everything the govt. already gives us (and pays for out of that $3T), but as a simpler replacement. Currently, really poor people get welfare, working poor get Earned Income Credits, and everyone who actually pays taxes (everyone not in Romney's famous "47%" quote) get the standard exemption when they file their taxes.
So, replace all that complexity with "Everybody gets $X" and you could spend exactly the same as we're spending now, but save a heck of a lot
Re: (Score:2)
So, replace all that complexity with "Everybody gets $X" and you could spend exactly the same as we're spending now, but save a heck of a lot of bureaucracy, tax accountants, etc, and eliminate some of the perverse incentives people have when near a transition threshold between current schemes. The devil is in the details, of course, but that's the main idea.
Bingo! A very good explanation for my viewpoint on it as well. Also increases social freedom because it increases fiscal independence at the lowest levels.
With a UBI, you can get rid of welfare, EITC, and more.
Paying for it, I'd flatten the tax rate considerably. You have in the UBI what amounts to a massive refundable tax credit that would make the overall system still highly progressive, at least within income ranges where it makes a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
They would try to add UBI on top of the other programs.
1. You realize that you replied to me twice with pretty much the same content, right?
2. They'd try, but I'd opposed that.
Realistically though, once a UBI is out there, it gets a lot easier to start pushing to actually end those programs, perhaps by starting with a low UBI and increasing it with each program ended. Because "everybody" gets the UBI, there should be a broad support for it. Much like the PFD in Alaska is broadly supported and people are heavily invested in the program being run "right".
With
Re: (Score:3)
Basic math, extended (Score:2)
That's a rather simplistic way to look at it. Anytime you increase spending you'll also need to increase taxes, assuming that you don't want to balloon the deficit or start creating money, causing inflation.
Anyways, I'm a libertarian who supports a UBI, approaching it from much the same angle as other UBI supporting libertarians. We're mostly moderate, small "l" libertarians, by the way.
But back on topic, please keep in mind that I'm doing single digit accuracy stuff here, and the math worked out better B
Re: (Score:2)
So it would cost 4 trillion to give every American adult $1000 check for a year, but we can dish out trillions quickly to big business.
House Passes $484 Billion Relief Package, But Lawmakers Are Already Arguing About Whatâ(TM)s Next (Forbes)
The Fed Will Pump Another $2.3 Trillion Into The Economy. Hereâ(TM)s Why This Time Is Different (Forbes)
We could have quickly stepped in to give every adult a check for 4 months. We could have said no evictions during that time, period. We could have said thi
Re: Yang should have copyrighted that idea. (Score:2)
First, your numbers are ridiculously off, second, the Laffer curve is a very real thing. Keynesians like to dismiss it because it's impossible to calculate exactly where that tipping point is, and it varies widely depending upon which population we're taking about. Nonetheless, we've already seen its effects. You're also very stupidly handwaving the fact that we were already spending more than we're collecting in taxes, and the madness has to stop.
Cut the pork? Sure, but nobody likes it when THEIR pet cause
Re: (Score:2)
Money doesn't grow on trees, now or ever.
In the current situation? It makes sense to keep people and businesses from going under.
As a permanent policy? It would be a disaster, for the whole 2-3 years it would take to bankrupt the entire country.
Re: Nope, we want to collect more (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The number you want is TPI or total earned income. That sum of nearly $13 trillion is the country's total personal income (TPI), defined as the amount of money earned by all residents in a given year, encompassing everything from wages and salaries to dividends and welfare checks. GDP includes all government spending which can't be taxed and it includes capital expenditures like building a new factory (also not income). If you had 100% taxation you could theoretically collect $13T. But of course you can't d
Re: The math is garbage because half our economy (Score:4, Informative)
We know your story from your previous posts: you have the same crap salary for 20 years doing bottom end IT work. You never get raises or promotions because you're a whiner not a do-er. Your attitude sucks: it's always someone else's fault you've failed economically in the richest country EVER in history during the richest time in that country's history.
And now you want to take from those who worked their asses off 7 days a week for years, decades in many cases, so you can get stuff you didn't earn.
Got it.
You should just post a form letter on these topic. Your message is always the same: take from hard working people and give to me. Gimme gimme.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No public come to my office. We design and build audio equipment for others. Of course, that's non-essential, so we're closed down. Of course, if I had a grocery store or drive-through restaurant, no problem breathing in their faces!
And that PPP loan? Really doesn't help [latimes.com]. But then, who cares about me keeping a half dozen employees off the unemployment rolls.
Maybe I should go ahead and lay them all off, and hope I can hire them back at some random time in the future when the Government deems that I am,
Re: (Score:3)
Wtf? Are you talking about?
Most people I've heard screaming about opening up are trying to go back to work.
Re: (Score:2)
by shutting down tax loop holes and stopping the 1% from hoarding all the wealth. Notice that Wall Street is recovering nicely while 26 million folks are out of work? Notice that there's still plenty of food, shelter and electricity and water? There's plenty to go around, our problem is distribution and how to reign in the impulses of our greedy, psychopathic investor/rent seeker class.
I didn't get the $1200 and I'm nowhere close to the investor / rent seeker class. I'll just have to live with the higher debt and inflation while getting none of the benefits. I suspect that many people on /. are described by that. Now they are talking about bailing out cushy government jobs and pensions and I'll have to live with that higher debt and inflation while getting none of the benefits. Maybe they'll pass the $2k a month that gets bandied about and I'll get to live with the higher debt and inf
Re:Nope, we want to collect more (Score:4, Informative)
Now, I know you'll say "I said wealth, not income". First, we don't tax wealth, we tax income. Second, why penalize people for saving and accumulating and making wise decisions? If we tax wealth, then that wealth leaves (ask France about what happened [npr.org]) and you encourage consumption - not savings. Meaning people will not save for the future.
Next, consider how much is needed. As of today [census.gov], about 330 million people in the US. At $1,000 per month, that's $330 billion a month - about $4 trillion per year. More than double all tax revenues - and about double what we spend.
Additionally, the top 1% hold about $25 trillion total, in wealth [brookings.edu]. So after 6 years, we've spent every dollar they had. Where do we turn next? The middle class, which holds $18 trillion - or about 4 years of spending. So after a decade, we've completely spent all the money of everyone who earns more than $50K/year - and now, making $4000 per month puts you into the top 1%.
Bottom line, your vision just doesn't work. It doesn't pencil out. And if you want to go and steal (because that's what it really is - be honest about it) the wealth of the 1%, they will leave and you're left with a destroyed economy.
I guess that's why Bernie likes breadlines - because if we implement this (and similar) plans, we'll all be standing in bread lines to get fed...
Re: (Score:2)
Because children born into wealthy families have a better chance of success in life than children born into poor families. Why shouldn't the rich and the poor compete on a level playing field?
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't the rich and the poor compete on a level playing field?
Because rich white families don't want their privileged children fraternizing with poor trash children, and in many cases don't want them going to the same school as poor trash black children, so the poor children of any color get the shit-tier schools with the shit-tier teachers.
Re: Nope, we want to collect more (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
by shutting down tax loop holes and stopping the 1% from hoarding all the wealth.
..yeah, good luck with that. You're more likely to have your life destroyed by them for daring to interfere. You might even literally lose your life over it. These people of which you speak will fight visciously to keep the money and power they have. Some would rather watch the world self-destruct than give it up. You'd literally have to kill some of them.
Re: (Score:2)
>"by shutting down tax loop holes and stopping the 1% from hoarding all the wealth."
Nope.
I know you like to believe that, but it isn't true. You could flat out CONFISCATE 100% of the "wealth" of the "1%" and it would last a year or two and then the entire country would collapse. Or you could tax at some insane amount and watch them all give up all plans of opening or developing anything new, or flee the country completely. There would be no money left because the "1%" are the ones spending the capita
Re: (Score:3)
You are dreaming if you think people currently on Medicaid are going to use their UBI to pay for health insurance premiums. We know they should do that, but we also know many of them won't.
Re: Yang should have copyrighted that idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, after crowding him out of the race, everyone else is going to bring it up like it's their idea.
UBI is still outside the Overton Window [wikipedia.org]. By dwelling on issues that the majority views as kooky and impractical, the Democrats are just helping Trump get re-elected.
I think that would be a thing (Score:2)
Pelosi is just ahead of the curve. Those 26 million are going to be unemployed for at least 12-18 months while a vaccine is developed and distributed and more treatment options are created.
Remember, COVID kills old folks at a rate of about 15%, and they VOTE. They're not goin
Re:Yang should have copyrighted that idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump got elected by smashing the Overton window open in the opposite direction, repeatedly taking positions openly that were so far to the right that most analysts thought there was no way he could be taken seriously. Republicans were pushing for more boarder guards and a fence, Trump promised a giant concrete fortress. Republicans were calling for tighter monitoring of immigrants, Trump pledged he would ban all Muslims from entering the country. Republicans called from investigation of Hillary Clinton's poor handling of classified documents, Trump pledged he would see her imprisoned. He promised to have every single illegal immigrant in the US rounded up and deported. While Republicans were insisting that America doesn't use torture and that 'enhanced interrogation' was a different thing entirely, Trump proudly promised that he would torture more suspects.
And then he got elected. The Overton window doesn't reflect the oppinions people really hold, it only reflects the oppinions they are happy admitting too. I think there are lots of people who hold extreme positions, but keep it to themselves for fear of being mocked - but as soon as they see a powerful person endorsing their views, they jump up and make their presence felt.
Re: (Score:2)
So it looks extreme, but only because it's hidden. Out concept of extreme views is distorted.
Re:Yang should have copyrighted that idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Democrats make the election about raising taxes to fund a multi-Trillion dollar giveaway, they are going to lose.
Yeap. They should make it about lowering taxes to fund a multi-trillion dollar giveaway. That is literally the kind of thing voters vote for.
Re:Yang should have copyrighted that idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd give you the Funny mod for the Subject. Yang was my favorite candidate.
However in this context I think they are force fitting a questionable tool for a real problem. The relevant joke is "Don't force it! Use a bigger hammer." (I wish I had a picture of the giant hammer sculpture I saw somewhere.) I think the UBI makes sense as part of an economic transition. (I actually think in ekronomic terms, where the objective is to balance investment against recreation to adjust the growth rate.)
The Covid-19 crisis is not a transition but a massive shock. I think that the economy has been severely traumatized, and on that basis harm mitigation should have been the focus. The clear priorities should have been medical response, food, and public order and the rest of the economy should have been put on ice. Kind of like inducing a coma to save the patient's life. A few examples: (1) rent and mortgage holidays, (2) Loan repayment holiday, (3) Close the stock markets. Some parts of the economy could be restarted and operate fairly normally under lockdown conditions, which is fine, but mostly you want to make sure the rest of the economy is not destroyed because a lot of people are properly scared of the disease.
One more thing. We are REALLY lucky that it wasn't worse. If a couple of the parameters of Covid-19 were tweaked, then it could have been much worse. This was just a moderately nasty zoonetic bio-accident. (Read up on the Ebola outbreak of 2014 for another time we got lucky...)
Re: (Score:2)
A few examples: (1) rent and mortgage holidays, (2) Loan repayment holiday, (3) Close the stock markets. Some parts of the economy could be restarted and operate fairly normally under lockdown conditions, which is fine,
I'm curious about this, especially #3. How would closing the stock markets been useful? It's virtually all electronic so as near as I can tell, it operated just fine with all the brokers at home. Closing it would seem a totally unnecessary disruption.
I also wonder whether you've though through the implications of #1 and #2. Payment holidays don't eliminate the problem (people aren't working so they're not earning so they can't pay their obligations). All it does is push the problem on someone else, either l
You need an economy to support it (Score:4, Insightful)
We need to have a system in place that allows our economy to continue to function at times like these. It isn't strictly necessary to completely shelter in place if early on we stop all travel between hubs so that having the virus spread to one city or region doesn't mean it will move to others. Even just having plans for vital industry to isolate would ensure that this type of scheme doesn't just collapse in on itself.
People need to work to support it (Score:5, Insightful)
The government can't give handouts if their tax base isn't working to supply the money. They don't need to figure out how to support the vast numbers of unemployed people. They need to figure out how to get them working again so they don't need the support.
Re: (Score:2)
There will always be work (Score:2, Insightful)
even with the advances of robotics and AI we had, at least until this pandemic, nearly full employment. Jobs may go away with automation but new ones will be created that we haven't even envisioned yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Ever wonder why small towns that get a Walmart get poorer? It is simple. Without Walmart, they had individual stores with local owners. Those owners bought and sold goods, employed a manger and/or several assistant managers, and maybe some other employees as cashiers and stockers. The profit went to the local owner who put it in the local bank and spent it locally. meanwhile, the employees put their payc
Re: (Score:2)
All private companies can compete to provide goods and services to the people to earn the money from them
We tax the earning of these corporations. And give them to the citizens to start the next round.
Every dollar spent by someone is earned by someone else. A part of it profit, a part of it is cost of labor and materials. Whats paid out as labor is earnings by someone else. Materials is earnings for another vendor
There is no law of conservation of energy or mas
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! Even in the world of science-fiction, when they have UBIs in place in a fictitious land in the future, it's almost always there because they've become technologically advanced enough so a large part of the population has no useful work/job to do anymore. Robots and automation have handled most of it.
To give out a basic income to everyone today, you'd have to be able to cost-justify it somehow. I'd be willing to entertain the idea that you could stop spending an equivalent amount on current welfar
Re: (Score:2)
Governements cannot think ahead past the next election. Corporations cannot think ahead past the next trimester.
You're asking them to think ahead past the next once-per-century event ?
Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. In the Star Trek universe where they no longer use money, robots and replicators manufacture everything.
Anyway, people are still producing stuff for us to buy, mainly food and other necessities. Do you have a better argument against a UBI?
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't succeed starting a new business there or what not, they'll still be able to survive.
It should ideally help reduce the disparity and reverse the trend of having to get to more expensive areas for the greatest chance of success.
Re: (Score:3)
UBI means more unearned income combined with higher taxes.
Many countries, including all of Western Europe, already do that to a greater extent than America.
So if your theory was correct, Europe would have many more startups than America.
This is the exact opposite of reality.
Re:You need an economy to support it (Score:5, Insightful)
You make it universal because it reduces the cost of administration, makes it impossible to game, and reduces the potential for graft.
It eliminates (some) perceived unfairness if everyone gets it on an equal footing.
If people do truly want to live off of a meager 12k/year, they can afford to do it somewhere where that is affordable and not work while moving money into places that desperately need it.
You've never heard of UBI as a solution to the forced urbanization caused by increased automation?
I'd argue that the only why welfare makes sense is if it's universal. When applied only if needed it leads to people that can't afford to work.
Re: You need an economy to support it (Score:3, Insightful)
How long until they start passing changes so some groups get more/less UBI than others?
After all I am a member of Group XYZ and we have always had it harder than your Group ABC so how come you get the same as me? Unfair! Gimme more! And take yours away at the same time or I'll call people names on Twitter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard the best way would be to use the military cost of living index by area to adjust for the difference since the military spends a lot of time to study and determine that information.
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of 'hospitals', say 'for-profit basic healthcare', and you would be right.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a lot more complicated than that.
Also US military spending is at around $700B per year. Halve that,and America would still be spending more then twice as Russia and China put together. That much money would give every person in the US over-eighteen an extra $1,700 a year. Not enough to live on, true... but it would still go a very long way to improving life for the lowest income. Or you could, you know, cut taxes. Maybe fund healthcare.
That's the real reason the US budget is always so strained. Their
Re:Inflation (Score:4, Informative)
Social Security - $1.0 trillion
Medicare - $644 billion
Medicaid - $409 billion
Other programs (including welfare, food stamps, etc) - $642 billion
Suddenly that $676 billion spent on the military doesn't look so big anymore. This is even more obvious if you look at how these programs have grown [wikipedia.org] as an historical percentage of the budget [pewresearch.org]. We've managed to reduce military spending from the massive levels in the 1950s and 1960s. But unfortunately social programs have grown by more than we've reduced military spending, leaving us with a perennial budget deficit. The CBO has been telling us this since the early 2000s [wordpress.com], warning us that growing social spending was killing the budget. Unfortunately people like you never actually read the CBO reports [cbo.gov], preferring to believe the fantasy that military spending is somehow responsible for all our budget woes. The data is out there - you just have to be willing to look at it.
U.S. military spending is currently about 3.2% of GDP. That compares to a world average of 2.1% [indexmundi.com]. The U.S. isn't even in the top 20. And if you add in Japan's GDP (the U.S. is obligated by treaties signed after WWII to provide for Japan's national defense - the goal being to prevent Japan from becoming a global military power again) and participation in NATO, U.S. military spending is pretty much right at the world average. It's just a large dollar amount simply because the U.S. economy is so big.
Re:Inflation (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you willing to vote to remove that limit?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why then have you been at war for 93% of your history, if your big military prevents war?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The current U.S. Treasury Bond yield is less than 1%. The current rate of inflation is a little more than 2%. The GDP is expected to shrink by 20ish percent this quarter.
But because we can borrow money now and pay it back with slightly less valuable money later, it makes a whole lot of sense to prop up the economy with borrowing to make sure that 1) people have money to spend on goods and services; 2) businesses can keep the doors open (figuratively, at least); and 3) wages do not become depressed by a la
Guaranteed ice cream. (Score:3, Funny)
Not at all the same (Score:3)
>"Her comments are the latest sign that Democratic lawmakers are seriously considering an idea that gained traction during the party's primary, thanks to the candidacy of Andrew Yang."
Sorry, but that is 100% wrong.
Yang was proposing UNIVERSAL Income. You get it, regardless. Pelosi is proposing widescale WELFARE. You only get if if your income is less than X or whatever additional exceptions and rules and hoops. There is a HUGE difference between the two.
Note, I am not saying either is good or bad (that is a different conversation, completely), just that they are not at all the same thing. But I will close something that likely applies to either: https://www.goodreads.com/quot... [goodreads.com]
Gave stimulus money back (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're confused, the national debt is not owed by you. That is owed by the government to the banking cartel. Don't help those greedy evil banker fucks, they finance both sides of wars, use the UN to push people aside for oil and other resources, destabilize economies to force countries to use them, etc.
Sure, why not? (Score:2)
As a permanent policy? Hell, no. Total disaster.
Send everyone some cash every month while this shit is going on, just until it's under control and we sort things out, start getting back on our economic feet again. But no longer than that.
Not gonna work (Score:4, Interesting)
We should be helping the people in dire need but giving them money really is both unsustainable for even a couple of months and sure to drive inflation through the roof if someone tried it in earnest by printing money. Instead, we should be providing help in kind. A bed in a shelter and a couple of meals a day for 100 million people would not cost that much per month and could be sustained long term.
A single bed capsule (google tokyo capsule hotel for more info) costs about $2000 retail, probably a lot cheaper wholesale. You could house 100 million people for 100 billion USD, assuming two people per capsule. OK, fine, maybe double the estimate for some outside wall construction and sewer services.
We should be able to provide something like nutriloaf with the minimum amount of calories per day per person needed for survival pretty cheap. We also need to provide people with a basic smartphone so they can apply for jobs, basic medical checkups and quarantine services to keep pandemics at bay, and access to a free checking account so they can bank. This is enough. Anyone who wants to eat better or have more room or just live better in any way can try to find work and once the economy improves they probably will succeed.
All of this can be done at a fraction of the cost of any UBI proposal which I have seen and is much more graft-proof. It is harder to steal a physical item than money and if people do not get their meals there will be direct feedback in short order so an official could only graft so much.
Re: (Score:3)
I did mention feeding. Nutriloaf is the best solution: nutritious but tastes bad and prompts people to get some work to eat better. Clothing is optional for survival. No need for the government to do anything there. It might be good to do formal-ware rentals for people going to interviews but hardly essential. Hygiene is pretty standard in capsule hotels and goes without saying: communal showers and bathroom facilities. Ideally they would be designed for easy automated unattended UV-C sterilization. This an
Re: (Score:3)
This is a really neat mental exercise. So I looked it up - it should cost about $3 to feed a person each day if you try to be nice and make it a meal rather than deliberate punishment food:
https://www.themarshallproject... [themarshallproject.org]
For 100 million people and 365 days a year, that's about $110 billion.
So the cost of building holding facilities would be probably around $200 billion and then you are looking at about that annually to administer the facilities and to feed the people. That' peanuts. Less than Medicaid or M
But there is no limit to military spending. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalists never seem to run out of other people's work.
Re:Socialism (Score:5, Insightful)
Better as "Super-greedy capitalists never run out of greed." They have a fake problem because there is no amount of money that can solve it.
You can also consider it from the perspective of the corporate cancers. They are programmed to grow without limit. But every cancer ultimately kills the host.
Re:Socialism (Score:5, Informative)
Capitalists never seem to run out of other people's work.
Actually the flat payment of $600/week for unemployment did just that. It's more profitable to stay on unemployment than to work if you're making under $20-$25/hr depending on your state's unemployment benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
So does running a farm, or an airplane manufacturer, or airline, or a bank, or a cruise ship line, or a car manufacturer, or a chain restaurant, or a pharma company, or . . ."